User:Nicolep227/Love contract

Love Contract
A love contract is a legal contract that is meant to limit the liability of an employer whose employees are romantically involved. An employer may choose to require a love contract when a romantic relationship within the company becomes known, in order to indemnify the company in case the employees' romantic relationship fails, primarily so that one party can't bring a sexual harassment lawsuit against the company. To that end, the love contract states that the relationship is consensual, and both parties of the relationship must sign it. The love contract may also stipulate rules for acceptable romantic behavior in the workplace. [This paragraph is the entire previous Wikipedia article]

The love contract, developed in 1982 by legal experts at Littler Mendelson in San Francisco, serves as a tool for employers to manage workplace relationships effectively and mitigate their liability risks. The pioneer attorneys of the love contract at Littler Mendelson state that the consensual relationship agreement officially confirms the consensual nature of the employees' relationship, their understanding of the company's sexual harassment policies, and their commitment to maintaining appropriate office conduct. Additionally, if the employees hold a supervisor-subordinate working relationship, both parties agree that one will transition to a different department or work group.

Human Resources Departments frequently encounter challenges in handling workplace relationships, particularly when they falter. The ensuing drama has the potential to significantly dampen employee morale and productivity, while also inviting allegations of favoritism or sexual harassment. In light of these difficulties, employers and HR departments are often adopting proactive measures, like love contracts, to minimize workplace disruptions and mitigate potential legal risks.

Benefits
Implementing love contracts offers several clear benefits. Firstly, it formally establishes the voluntary nature of the relationship at issue. Additionally, it ensures that all parties involved understand the company's policies regarding consensual relationships and sexual harassment. Experts recommend conducting individual meetings with each employee to confirm genuine consent and to review the company's sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure. Employees should be informed that signing the agreement is not mandatory for employment and they should be encouraged to seek legal advice beforehand. The love contract also regularly stipulates that employees must notify the employer of any relationship dissolution, with the employer actively monitoring post-relationship dynamics for potential issues. Finally, it guarantees that any ensuing disputes will be resolved through mediation or binding arbitration, a process deemed more efficient and cost-effective by the proponents of love contracts, alleviating pressure on the busy court system.

Disadvantages
There is a lack of legal precedent surrounding love contracts and that poses a major concern in terms of predicting their enforceability. They are not foolproof methods for employers to avoid liability because they do not prevent future issues, such as quid pro quo sexual harassment or retaliation. Love contracts can also potentially open the door to claims of invading personal privacy. Employees approached to sign these agreements might feel coerced into revealing sensitive personal information, such as extramarital affairs or same-sex relationships. Certain states, like New York, Colorado, North Dakota, and California, have enacted privacy protection statutes to varying degrees, offering employees some level of protection for activities unrelated to their employment, including personal relationships, but have yet to address love contracts signed by coworkers in a consensual relationship.

Common Provisions
A non-exhaustive compilation of potential components that can be found within a formal love contract include the following:


 * An identification of the individuals involved, along with their respective job titles.


 * A mutual affirmation of the voluntary and consensual nature of the relationship, emphasizing that employment terms are not contingent upon it.
 * Establishment of workplace conduct guidelines for the couple.
 * Acknowledgment of the employer's sexual harassment policy.
 * Commitment to promptly report any instances of unwelcome behavior or harassment.

Typically, the romantic partners affirm their awareness of the company's policy on sexual harassment and recognize their freedom to end their relationship without any negative impact on their employment. Subsequently, the duly signed document is then submitted to the human resources department for record-keeping.

State Treatment of Love Contracts
Many states in the United States have published Employment Law Letters discussing love contracts and whether they are recommended in the employment practices of each prospective state. Despite the fact that these love contract policies are very popular among employment lawyers in the United States, there is a noticeable absence of case law addressing them. The following are a few of the only states with case law or statutes that contemplate love contracts.

Montana
Only one Montana case has delved into the legality of love contracts: ''Williams v. Joe Lowther Ins. Agency, Inc.,'' 2008 MT 46, 341 Mont. 394, 177 P.3d 1018. The case sheds light on a conflict involving the owner of a company who employed his long-term, married mistress within his company, and had a love contract in place. Consequently, he presented her with a severance package, giving her the ultimatum of either rekindling their intimate relationship or leaving her job. She declined and was subsequently terminated. Alleging unlawful quid pro quo sex discrimination, the employee sought recourse, leading to a commission ruling in her favor, ordering the owner to pay damages. Upon appeal, the owner argued that her termination wasn't based on her gender. However, the Supreme Court of Montana dismissed his claims. Even his attempt to introduce expert testimony, justifying the termination within the context of a love contract between them, failed to sway the court. Supposedly, the love contract included a provision stipulating that if the romantic relationship ended, the employee would depart from the company. The court ultimately concluded that love contracts cannot be used as an affirmative defense in that context and that they are essentially "contracts of adhesion," characterized by a take-it-or-leave-it stance, that leaves the signee with minimal bargaining power or other alternatives.

New York
The New York Labor Law §201-d, also known as The New York State After-Hours Legal Activities Law, is a law that employers can potentially use when considering the use of a love contract to supplement their Human Resources policies. The statute does not expressly discuss love contracts and consensual relationship agreements, but it restricts employers from firing or committing discrimination against their employees because of the legal recreational activities the employees are engaged in, "outside work hours, off the employer's premises and without use of the employer's equipment or other property.” If consensual relationships are deemed a recreational activity that is protected under this law, love contracts and non-fraternization policies would be difficult for employers to enforce. The fundamental case that examined the language and purpose of the statute is New York State v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 207 A.D.2d 150, 621 N.Y.S.2d 158 (1995)  The issue in the case was whether the action of dating is a protected recreational activity under New York Labor Law §201-d when Walmart's non-fraternization policy was in dispute. The majority’s holding established that dating is not a protected recreational activity under the statute. They held that dating is different from a recreational activity because its key component was romantic interest. That is not mentioned in the statute's clearly defined categories of protected leisure-time activities. Based on that decision, love contracts disclosing co-worker relationships are currently not an illegal invasion of employee privacy under New York Labor Law §201-d.